On the semantics of number morphology

Abstract

This paper develops a semantic account of morphological number marking, specifically in the presence of numerals. In addition to accounting for number marking on basic nouns like book in English, the account handles variation in patterns of number marking along two dimensions: cross-linguistically, between languages that either necessitate or prohibit singular morphology in the presence of numerals greater than ‘one’; and within one and the same language on the various nominal elements in English. Building off the presuppositional approach to morphological number from Sauerland (Proc SALT 13:258–275, 2003), the proposed semantics accounts for both sorts of variation by assuming flexibility in the selection of the measure relevant to the one-ness presupposition of the morphological singular form.

Complex Cardinal Numerals and the Strong Minimalist Thesis

“…This proposal accommodates the dissociation of numerals from the plural morphology. Our analysis is also compatible with Scontras's (2022) [31] analysis, where the feature [CARD] (cardinal) heads NumP in cardinal numeral structures, and the feature [ORD] (ordinal) heads NumP in ordinal numeral structures. According to our analysis, however, both multiplicative and additive complexes are headed by a functional category with valued and unvalued features.…”

“…Like other functional categories Co is a closed class category and is associated with different conceptual features. Empirical evidence that more than one Co head is externalized in multiplicative cardinal numerals comes from multiplicative complexes, such as (30) and (31). With composite cardinal numerals, including additive and multiplicative structure, such as (32), more than one overt and covert additive Co is part of the complex cardinal numeral.…”

Classifiers can be for numerals <em>or</em> nouns: Two strategies for numeral modification

“…We will demonstrate that these two types of numeral modification strategies are present cross-linguistically, exemplified by Ch'ol and Shan in subsequent sections. Scontras (2022), similarly, argues for cross-linguistic variation in numeral modification strategies, but this comes about through variation in the selection of the measure function, which is intended to capture the cross-linguistic differences in number marking.…”

Why Is Inflectional Morphology Difficult to Borrow?—Distributing and Lexicalizing Plural Allomorphy in Pennsylvania Dutch

“…Due to time and space considerations we do not elaborate on these matters here. The reader is referred to Harbour (2014) and Scontras (2022) for a detailed overview.…”